Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Lively Debate Between George Monbiot and Helen Caldicott

Democracy Now hosted a debate between pro-nuclear convert, George Monbiot, and anti-nuclear activist, Helen Caldicott. Text can be found here.

Here’s one of George’s notable quotes:

When it comes to low-level radiation, unfortunately, environmentalists have been responsible for quite a similar approach by making what appear to be unjustifiable and excessive claims for the impact of that radiation. That is not in any way to minimize what is—what could well happen as a result of the events in Fukushima, but what it does say is we have to use the best possible science to work out what the likely effects are to be and not engage in what could be far more devastating to the lives of people in Japan: a wild overreaction in terms of the response in which we ask the Japanese people to engage.

I’d say Mr. Monbiot did quite well holding his own, Dr. Caldicott, on the other hand, well, er, watch and decide…

Comments

Wow! It's like watching two blind people argue over what an elephant looks like.

Monbiot was obviously better prepared and better informed, and fortunately, he exposed Caldicott for the fringe lunatic that she is. Someone get that old bat a tin-foil hat! He had her reduced to babbling about conspiracy theories and using such convincing arguments as "I’m a physician ... doctors can’t lie." Well, who could argue with that? ;-)

Did Caldicott just admit that she doesn't know about UNSCEAR?! Amazing! It's no wonder she doesn't know anything about radiation.

She does know about self-promotion, however. I notice that she shamelessly managed to plug not one, but two of her books.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.